You are here: Home > Message Board > News & Politics > Topic
November 1 2026 12.00am

This page is no longer updated, and is the old forum. For new topics visit the New HOL forum.

The Brexit Thread (LOCKED)


Page 238 of 1552 < 234 235 236 237 238 239 240 241 242 >
jamiemartin721 Flag Reading 24 Oct 16 1.43pm

Originally posted by Stirlingsays

So you think it is integrity not to serve your country.

Also not all remainers voted remain for the same reasons nor had the same intensity. I know a few remainers who voted remain but had little enthusiasm for the EU.

It isn't for an observer to judge a person on integrity without knowing the actual person.

No one serves 'our country', they serve their ideas about their country, and their own interests. I think its a noble concept, but its largely a self serving concept of their country, their personal interests, convenience - and we tend to broadly define 'serving the country' to support our perspective and the argument we're trying to make (typically to present defence or avoidance of certain 'inconveniences'.

Unsurprisingly, this 'service of the nation' is a popular political phrase, because politicians can by default link other peoples 'service' to their own, and by extstention serve their personal agenda.

 

"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug"
[Link]
steeleye20 Flag Croydon 24 Oct 16 2.04pm

I get that but to get labour into power means votes.

48% of the vote probably more now are against brexit and they are not represented in Parliament.

Yet Corbyn has gone over to leave.

Tony Blair won elections he has obviously seen this.

Blair and Thatcher opposed the govt. of the day thats how they came to power todays Labour Party do not oppose the govt.


 
Hoof Hearted 24 Oct 16 2.46pm

Originally posted by nickgusset

First level.

Trotting this load of bollocks out again eh?

 
Hoof Hearted 24 Oct 16 2.49pm

Originally posted by jamiemartin721

Faith or support of democracy, to carry through their plan for Brexit, irrespective of what the will or majority of the people want it to mean.

Which is odd, because all I keep hearing is how Labour are completely unelectable. So the Tories would apparently be a shoe in.

I haven't got the slightest clue what point you are making here jamie?

 
steeleye20 Flag Croydon 24 Oct 16 3.54pm

Put simply the government is deciding what they think is best for the government from the narrow leave victory and will apply that if they can IMO.

 
jamiemartin721 Flag Reading 24 Oct 16 4.18pm

Originally posted by Hoof Hearted

I haven't got the slightest clue what point you are making here jamie?

Democratic mandates and manifestos etc. Personally, I don't understand why the Conservatives aren't putting 'Brexit' to manifestos and general elections - they're pretty nailed on to win one.

 

"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug"
[Link]
chris123 Flag hove actually 24 Oct 16 4.19pm

Originally posted by steeleye20

I get that but to get labour into power means votes.

48% of the vote probably more now are against brexit and they are not represented in Parliament.

Yet Corbyn has gone over to leave.

Tony Blair won elections he has obviously seen this.

Blair and Thatcher opposed the govt. of the day thats how they came to power todays Labour Party do not oppose the govt.


The flaw here is to represent the 48% as pro Labour - this is no more true than the 52% is pro Government.

 
chris123 Flag hove actually 24 Oct 16 4.39pm

Originally posted by jamiemartin721

No one serves 'our country', they serve their ideas about their country, and their own interests. I think its a noble concept, but its largely a self serving concept of their country, their personal interests, convenience - and we tend to broadly define 'serving the country' to support our perspective and the argument we're trying to make (typically to present defence or avoidance of certain 'inconveniences'.

Unsurprisingly, this 'service of the nation' is a popular political phrase, because politicians can by default link other peoples 'service' to their own, and by extstention serve their personal agenda.

Well there is a military line in my family and I don't agree - we lost a number, so I'm probably biased.

 
steeleye20 Flag Croydon 24 Oct 16 4.46pm

Actually I think the referendum was characterised by Labour lukewarm support for remain now they are leave so are voters likely to turn out I think not and it is the big issue for a long time IMO regrettably.

For me Mrs.Sturgeon leads her party and comes over direct and bright. She has a role to play here.


 
.TUX. Flag 24 Oct 16 7.44pm

Originally posted by Hoof Hearted

The Remain camp's warnings were that we would be in economic meltdown by now.

They correctly forecast the devaluation of the £, but forgot about the upside of that event helping our exports.

Initially the stockmarket fell, but only for a few days and has now recovered and nearly at an all time high.

Sh1t stirrers like you will seize on any opportunity to bang your drum about the Tories, The Brexiteers, Capitalism, etc... anything your miserable lives detest in your world of communist inspired unworkable heaven.

Go on a march or something with a witty placard like "Tories Out".

This is also a problem though. The 'highs' the FTSE is witnessing is nothing other than QE funds (our money) being pumped into the market (share buy-backs etc) to artificially inflate it. This is, surprise surprise, making a lot of very rich people even richer.
A good read courtesy of Bill Bonner:

Deep State Economics: How QE 'Works'


Even ex-Tory leader Hague can see the damage caused...

LIKE A HOUSE on fire, the election continues to draw a crowd of gawkers, writes Bill Bonner in his Diary of a Rogue Economist.

We joined them this week, warming our hands and hoping to see the whole damned place burn down.

Wednesday night's debate brought a shift to policy issues. But, as usual, it was a pathetic discussion.

One, a slick, conniving pro with more jackass solutions to the problems she helped cause. The other floundering, unable to form a coherent critique of his opponent's claptrap programs.

Both of them offered to heal the sick, enrich the poor, and raise the dead.

Occasionally, by accident, an intelligent idea came running out of the house with its hair on fire. The candidates quickly shot it dead.

Hillary's Deep State economics don't work.

We've been arguing for years that fixing the price of credit by central banks would have the same consequences as fixing any other price: disaster.

If you set the price of credit too high, borrowing gets too expensive...and the shelves groan with unsold inventory as you punish demand. If you set the price too low, buyers are happy at first...until the manufacturer gets tired of taking losses and the product disappears.

The only price that works is the one you don't set...the one that is discovered by buyers and sellers...moving freely as supply and demand shift.

So it was that when the Fed nailed the price of credit to the floor, we expected the typical debacle.

And now, others are coming around to our point of view. Here's William Hague, the former leader of the British Conservative Party, explaining in The Telegraph why QE is a bad idea:

1. Savers find it impossible to earn a worthwhile return, which drives them into riskier assets, thus causing the price of houses and shares to be inflated ever higher.
2. Higher asset prices make people who own them much richer while leaving out many others, seriously exacerbating social and political divides and fueling the anger behind "populist" campaigns.
3. Pension funds have poor returns and therefore suffer huge deficits, causing businesses to have to put more money into them rather than use it for expansion.
4. Banks find it harder to run a viable business, contributing to the banking crisis now visibly widespread in Italy and Germany, in particular.
5. Those people who are able to save more do so because they need a bigger pot of savings to get an equivalent return, so low interest rates cause those people to spend less, not more.
6. Companies have an incentive to use borrowed money to buy back shares – which they are doing on a big scale – rather than spend the money on new and productive investments.
7. Central banks are starting to buy up corporate bonds, not just government bonds, to keep the system inflated – so they are acquiring risky assets themselves and giving preference to some companies over others.
8. 'Zombie companies' which can only stay in business because they can borrow so cheaply, are kept going even though they would not normally be successful – dragging down long-term productivity.
9. Pumping up the prices of stock markets and houses without an underlying improvement in economic performance becomes ever more difficult to unwind and ultimately threatens an almighty crash whenever it does come to an end – wiping out business and home buyers who got used to ultra-low rates for too long.
10. People are not stupid; when they see emergency measures going on for nearly a decade, it undermines their confidence in authorities who they think have lost the plot...
But they haven't lost the plot at all...Hillary and her backers are following the script perfectly.

The trouble is it wasn't the show Mr.Hague and others thought it was.

It was more like House of Cards or Game of Thrones than Father Knows Best or The Andy Griffith Show – the good guys were never meant to win.

Fixing prices never makes sense for the public. It makes sense only when you are trying to achieve a result that willing buyers and sellers – the public – wouldn't achieve on their own...and wouldn't want.

QE is designed to steal from the public and reward the privileged elite. Pushing down interest rates punishes ordinary savers; it benefits big borrowers, the rich, and Wall Street.

That is the way the system is really rigged.

It is obvious why Ms.Clinton didn't mention it last night. She is one of the riggers...a member of the Establishment...the Deep State...the Parasitocracy. She benefits from the rigged-up system.

In 2013 alone, she was paid 5,000 for three speeches to Goldman Sachs.

We don't know what she said, but we doubt that Goldman was paying for financial advice.

Mr.Trump didn't mention either in the debate Wednesday night. Too bad.


Edited by .TUX. (24 Oct 2016 7.45pm)

 

Buy Litecoin.
Cucking Funt Flag Clapham on the Back 24 Oct 16 7.58pm

And there I was, thinking that the main purpose of QE was to enable the banks to shore up their balance sheets. Silly me.

 

Wife beating may be socially acceptable in Sheffield, but it is a different matter in Cheltenham
JohnyBoy Flag 24 Oct 16 8.50pm

Originally posted by .TUX.

This is also a problem though. The 'highs' the FTSE is witnessing is nothing other than QE funds (our money) being pumped into the market (share buy-backs etc) to artificially inflate it. This is, surprise surprise, making a lot of very rich people even richer.
A good read courtesy of Bill Bonner:

Deep State Economics: How QE 'Works'


Even ex-Tory leader Hague can see the damage caused...

LIKE A HOUSE on fire, the election continues to draw a crowd of gawkers, writes Bill Bonner in his Diary of a Rogue Economist.

We joined them this week, warming our hands and hoping to see the whole damned place burn down.

Wednesday night's debate brought a shift to policy issues. But, as usual, it was a pathetic discussion.

One, a slick, conniving pro with more jackass solutions to the problems she helped cause. The other floundering, unable to form a coherent critique of his opponent's claptrap programs.

Both of them offered to heal the sick, enrich the poor, and raise the dead.

Occasionally, by accident, an intelligent idea came running out of the house with its hair on fire. The candidates quickly shot it dead.

Hillary's Deep State economics don't work.

We've been arguing for years that fixing the price of credit by central banks would have the same consequences as fixing any other price: disaster.

If you set the price of credit too high, borrowing gets too expensive...and the shelves groan with unsold inventory as you punish demand. If you set the price too low, buyers are happy at first...until the manufacturer gets tired of taking losses and the product disappears.

The only price that works is the one you don't set...the one that is discovered by buyers and sellers...moving freely as supply and demand shift.

So it was that when the Fed nailed the price of credit to the floor, we expected the typical debacle.

And now, others are coming around to our point of view. Here's William Hague, the former leader of the British Conservative Party, explaining in The Telegraph why QE is a bad idea:

1. Savers find it impossible to earn a worthwhile return, which drives them into riskier assets, thus causing the price of houses and shares to be inflated ever higher.
2. Higher asset prices make people who own them much richer while leaving out many others, seriously exacerbating social and political divides and fueling the anger behind "populist" campaigns.
3. Pension funds have poor returns and therefore suffer huge deficits, causing businesses to have to put more money into them rather than use it for expansion.
4. Banks find it harder to run a viable business, contributing to the banking crisis now visibly widespread in Italy and Germany, in particular.
5. Those people who are able to save more do so because they need a bigger pot of savings to get an equivalent return, so low interest rates cause those people to spend less, not more.
6. Companies have an incentive to use borrowed money to buy back shares – which they are doing on a big scale – rather than spend the money on new and productive investments.
7. Central banks are starting to buy up corporate bonds, not just government bonds, to keep the system inflated – so they are acquiring risky assets themselves and giving preference to some companies over others.
8. 'Zombie companies' which can only stay in business because they can borrow so cheaply, are kept going even though they would not normally be successful – dragging down long-term productivity.
9. Pumping up the prices of stock markets and houses without an underlying improvement in economic performance becomes ever more difficult to unwind and ultimately threatens an almighty crash whenever it does come to an end – wiping out business and home buyers who got used to ultra-low rates for too long.
10. People are not stupid; when they see emergency measures going on for nearly a decade, it undermines their confidence in authorities who they think have lost the plot...
But they haven't lost the plot at all...Hillary and her backers are following the script perfectly.

The trouble is it wasn't the show Mr.Hague and others thought it was.

It was more like House of Cards or Game of Thrones than Father Knows Best or The Andy Griffith Show – the good guys were never meant to win.

Fixing prices never makes sense for the public. It makes sense only when you are trying to achieve a result that willing buyers and sellers – the public – wouldn't achieve on their own...and wouldn't want.

QE is designed to steal from the public and reward the privileged elite. Pushing down interest rates punishes ordinary savers; it benefits big borrowers, the rich, and Wall Street.

That is the way the system is really rigged.

It is obvious why Ms.Clinton didn't mention it last night. She is one of the riggers...a member of the Establishment...the Deep State...the Parasitocracy. She benefits from the rigged-up system.

In 2013 alone, she was paid 5,000 for three speeches to Goldman Sachs.

We don't know what she said, but we doubt that Goldman was paying for financial advice.

Mr.Trump didn't mention either in the debate Wednesday night. Too bad.


Edited by .TUX. (24 Oct 2016 7.45pm)

This is a good appraisal of the downside of qe TUX and i dont disagree with it. William Hagues points are all relevant. If we solve a debt crisis by borrowing more just doesnt sound right. If central banks keep IR low this can only be negative for savers (mostly old people) and good for younger people who are able to borrow money cheaply.

I only disagree when apportioning blame onto politicians. I know we all like to blame them for everything but they are not responsible for central bank (bofe or Fed) policy so cant impact monetary policy (IR, QE or money supply).
The current policies certainly favours the 'elites' who can borrow money very cheaply at the expense of savers but surely this would benefit Donald more than Hillary given his entreprenerial and business background....although i wouldnt blame donald either.

And the flipside of not having low IR QE or increased money supply could have meant we entered a huge 1930s style depression after the financial crisis.

The above policies weaken currencies and people on here have argued this is a positive for the uk after brexit but again the flipside is that the Uk economy has plunged by 17% in us$ terms. With total uk gdp of 2.8trillion,this has effectively cost the uk economy £476billion....which might be good for international property buyers (i.e elites) buying up our already short supply of housing at a discount but poor uk citizens will shoulder the burden...we can again blame politicians for this loss but all the main political parties (except UKIP and DUP) did not support this collapse.

 
.TUX. Flag 24 Oct 16 9.42pm

Originally posted by JohnyBoy

This is a good appraisal of the downside of qe TUX and i dont disagree with it. William Hagues points are all relevant. If we solve a debt crisis by borrowing more just doesnt sound right. If central banks keep IR low this can only be negative for savers (mostly old people) and good for younger people who are able to borrow money cheaply.

I only disagree when apportioning blame onto politicians. I know we all like to blame them for everything but they are not responsible for central bank (bofe or Fed) policy so cant impact monetary policy (IR, QE or money supply).
The current policies certainly favours the 'elites' who can borrow money very cheaply at the expense of savers but surely this would benefit Donald more than Hillary given his entreprenerial and business background....although i wouldnt blame donald either.

And the flipside of not having low IR QE or increased money supply could have meant we entered a huge 1930s style depression after the financial crisis.

The above policies weaken currencies and people on here have argued this is a positive for the uk after brexit but again the flipside is that the Uk economy has plunged by 17% in us$ terms. With total uk gdp of 2.8trillion,this has effectively cost the uk economy £476billion....which might be good for international property buyers (i.e elites) buying up our already short supply of housing at a discount but poor uk citizens will shoulder the burden...we can again blame politicians for this loss but all the main political parties (except UKIP and DUP) did not support this collapse.

I believe we already have, though it's not 'hit the streets' just yet.
QE has done nothing more than prolong OUR pain and filled the pockets of the elite. I honestly wish more could see that politicians, regardless of party, rule diddly. Central banks ie The Fed/BoE etc rule the roost and always have, and always will.
Sadly.

 

Buy Litecoin.
JohnyBoy Flag 24 Oct 16 9.51pm

Originally posted by .TUX.

I believe we already have, though it's not 'hit the streets' just yet.
QE has done nothing more than prolong OUR pain and filled the pockets of the elite. I honestly wish more could see that politicians, regardless of party, rule diddly. Central banks ie The Fed/BoE etc rule the roost and always have, and always will.
Sadly.

Again i agree with your comments, easy moneary policy just means that real wealth passes from the poorest to the richest in society. Interest rates were reduced further and qe increased after brexit so the damage on the poor and older members of society is set to get worse.
The economic environment being created is IMO setting us up for a socialist revolution, which some may like but we are going to go through considerably more pain before we get there

 
jeeagles Flag 26 Oct 16 10.20pm

Changing the subject slightly but sticking to Brexit related news.
Bojo and Zack Goldsmith has re-affirmed their opposition to Heathrow's proposed 3rd runway. They are going to campaign against it based on environmental laws. The stringent environmental protection that sets limits on noise, air pollution, habitats etc. was one of the many laws imposed on the UK by the EU and they both want to get rid of.

Adding to that the Tory's are trying to reignite the economy by investing in the biggest infrastructure building campaign since the Victorians. However, the construction industry is at full capacity. There's a shortage of staff at all levels in particular Engineers. So to do it, we are going to need more imigratuon.

Still it could be worse... They could be UKIP.

 
Henry of Peckham Flag Eton Mess 27 Oct 16 6.46am

Edited by Henry of Peckham (27 Oct 2016 11.18pm)

 

Denial is not just a river in Egypt
carlonoil Flag Naples 27 Oct 16 8.06am

Originally posted by JohnyBoy

Again i agree with your comments, easy moneary policy just means that real wealth passes from the poorest to the richest in society. Interest rates were reduced further and qe increased after brexit so the damage on the poor and older members of society is set to get worse.
The economic environment being created is IMO setting us up for a socialist revolution, which some may like but we are going to go through considerably more pain before we get there

So following the glorious revolution, everything will be great, poverty will be abolished, everyone will be exactly equal, all sections of society will merge as of one and get on together and everyone will live happily for ever after?

 
dannyh Flag wherever I lay my hat....... 27 Oct 16 8.45am

Originally posted by Kermit8

Would losing access to the EU market, higher prices for foodstuffs, higher inflation, higher unemployment, tens of billions lost in tax revenues, having less security, more pollution in our seas and rivers, and one or two other negative things that will almost certainly happen in the years after Brexit, perhaps make you question the wisdom of your choice to Leave?

Sorry kerm old fruit that is the biggest load of sensationalist buffoonery I have ever read on these boards, and I include some of the absolute drivel written in Palace Talk !!

We catorgorically will not lose access to the EU Market as to bar us would mean the EU would almost certainly collapse without our imports from it.

higher prices for food stuffs ? honestly where do you get this drivel have you been reading comrade Gussett's links again ?

Lost tax revenues ? name me one Giant of commerce whose decided to leave the UK because of the EU vote. ? Again more biased nonsense masquerading as fact.

Less Security ( a subject close to my heart as you well know) we will remain as we have for years one of the major players in NATO, Brexit has nowt to do with that, as for our security services suffering because of Brexit ??? Ask yourself this when was the last large scale terror attack on the mainland ? Then compare that time scale to continental Europe. We are light years ahead of our EU cousins in counter intelligence as we have been dealing with it successfully since the 60's.


Brexit affecting Pollution in our seas and rivers ? are you actually smoking bath salts.

Sorry Buddy but your entire post is anti Brexit hogwash

 

"It's not the bullet that's got my name on it that concerns me; it's all them other ones flyin' around marked 'To Whom It May Concern.'"
JohnyBoy Flag 27 Oct 16 9.10am

Originally posted by carlonoil

So following the glorious revolution, everything will be great, poverty will be abolished, everyone will be exactly equal, all sections of society will merge as of one and get on together and everyone will live happily for ever after?

I didnt say that and would not be supportive of a socialist revolution, just the d8vide between rich and poor is widening, which imo will snap back to socialism once people have had enough....it wont cure the problems though

 
jamiemartin721 Flag Reading 27 Oct 16 9.41am

It doesn't really matter whether the UK voted for Remain or Exit from the EU.

What really matters is how we manage that, and project the future for the UK from that exit. An exit will have some pretty serious implications, but there may very well be some significant benefits.

It all really depends on what you consider 'implications' and 'benefits'.

Stay or leave is relatively meaningless.

 

"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug"
[Link]
Page 238 of 1552 < 234 235 236 237 238 239 240 241 242 >

You are here: Home > Message Board > News & Politics > Topic